What is the expected way to configure a port-based VPWS service?

[kreeger-arrcus]

Does someone understand how I would use the openconfig model to configure a physical interface for a port-based L2 service, such as VPWS, in which all frames should be passed through, regardless of whether or not they have a VLAN tag?

First, I thought that using a match on VLAN range 0-4094 would be the answer, however the vlan-id type only allows a range of 1-4094. This does not allow for untagged packets on a subinterface.

Should a simpler mode be added to simply say "port-based" or similar to indicate any frame is passed through, or does the vlan-id range need to be loosened to allow 0 as a value for untagged frames?

Loosening the range to allow 0 allows matching untagged packets and then perhaps pushing on a tag if desired...

[chrisy]

Do you have a vendor equivalent? In my head this should be as simple as just specifying the parent port in the endpoint, but I suspect vendor configurations do need some active encouragement to also include tagged frames.

[kreeger-arrcus]

@chrisy This Cisco documentation shows how they decide to match packets for subinterfaces. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116453-technote-ios-xr-l2vpn-00.html#anc4 They use the keywords "encapsulation untagged" to match only untagged packets for a subinterface, or the keywords "encapsulation default" to match all packets to a subinterface.

Today in openconfig, my interpretation is that subinterface 0 would only match untagged frames. If we want to change this for subinterface 0 in an L2 service case, like VPWS, how about if an attribute named something like "match-any-vlan" was added to the subinterface? It would only make sense on subinterface 0.

[chrisy]

Ah yes. Locally we added an augment for one vendor, I believe it was something like /interfaces/interface/config/encapsulation-method and one value of this would infer whatever was needed in our backend. I think there is room to come up with a standard approach for this; I didn't previously simply because, at the time, I had difficulty wading through vendorese working out what the equivalent functionality for this and adjacent items really was.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue is stale because it has been open 180 days with no activity. If you wish to keep this issue active, please remove the stale label or add a comment, otherwise will be closed in 14 days.